Talk:Story : The Charter
= Page Restructuring = In an effort to get people to review these amendments and get this matter, which should have been resolved all ready, resolved, I have: * Restructured it into sections for easy editing. * Deleted a couple of amendments which are to be discussed in a full council. * Removed a lot of incidental chat which is now either out of date or irrelevant. * Ordered the amendments by number and approval rating. Amendments that have been removed from here will be discussed in Spring 1222 - any amendments which fail to gain approval on this page, and are subsequently removed from the voting list can be proposed again in a later council, though I would ask that you check your support base before proposing failed amendments again to make sure that there is actually a chance it will go through, and not simply die a death. The things I have deleted are in the history for this page. I don't care about preserving it for prosperity - I just want this dealt with in the fastest and most convenient manner possible, and right now that means having less to read. Feel free to paste all the deleted material back into this discussion window at the end of this debate if you feel it is necessary, or adding it to the bottom of the document where it won't be in the way. --James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) = Approved Charter Adjustments (Majority Aye)= The most recently approved articles have been incorporated into the charter. = Deadlocked Charter Adjustments (Half Nay)= Article 3.2.7 (2 vote Aye, 3 vote Nay) (Addition) Provisional Membership may be revoked by a simple vote at any regular council, provided the issue has been raised at least one season earlier and mentioned on the previous regular council. : I revoke my vote against this, as I don't even think it should be discussed at this point and can be raised in Council later, at which time, I will vote IC. --Perikles 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I disagree. Isn't the whole point of this exercise to see what was done in the first process? IMO the charter story was dying a death of 'can't be bothered right now'. I only had Longinus sign it because he would eventually be going to do so in whatever the final form was or he would be removed from the game, not because I thought it was in its final form. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) : I'm not sure if this is really needed, two years is a rather short time, but anyway. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) For: Longinus, Marcus Against: Mnemosyne, Bedo, Ambrosius, Phaedrus : I consider it unequitable that someone's membership, provisional or otherwise can be revoked so easily, when they have done nothing wrong. If they have offended against the Covenant or the Order, these things are already provided for elsewhere in the Charter. If not, then it seems reasonable to give them their two years grace. --Perikles 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :: And if we find that they are an instant source of friction and several magi take an extreme dislike to them, even though they haven't done anything 'legally' wrong? We then have to put up with htem for the full two years. Provisional members are provisional because we aren't sure they should be accepted. If, for whatever reason, we suddenly are sure they should not be accepted, then we should be able to kick them out (hospitality aside) when we feel like. --Corbonjnl 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::Agreed - this is our home after all, and joining it is a privilege not a right. JBforMarcus 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ::: One wonder why anyone who is instant souce of friction should be granted even Provisional Membership at all. Surely we want to be reasonably sure that even a Provisional Member is a sound prospect. After all, we could always extend them guest rights for a season before we let them apply. *shrug* --Perikles 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::: I can think of one reason right away, if we discover they have an agenda or connections that will not benefit the covenant, and is detrimental in the short term. As you might have noted I have not voted on the issue yet, I wanted to raise it for discussion but I'm not user whether it is needed. I'd appreaciate if Ambrocius and Bedo could comment also. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) :::::Bedo tends to agree with Mnemosyne on this issue--OldNick 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC) ::::: I believe that this amendment makes too light a deal of provisional membership, and unnecessarily shackles the actions of provisional member. Any misstep, political or otherwise, could lead to a simple majority and expulsion. Once that happens, it would be much more difficult to find a new home. Ambrosius would much rather go the other way and have a provisional membership require extraordinary action to over-ride (like a danger to the covenant or its members). As you say, two years is NOT that long a time to put up with an annoying applicant. --Tim 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) :::::: That reason is a good enough to me for not including any premature ending of the Provissional Membership, thanks. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) :Compromise proposal: Increasing the level of vote required, from simple, to something requiring a greater proportion of Aye votes, possibly even a unanimous vote would be a compromise. "Two years is a short time" is then less of an issue: this article grants the council the power to rapidly eject a provisonal member from the covenant in times when such is necessary, and if the vote required needs a great proportion of Aye votes, then it will be easy for those troubled by the article to prevent its employment in situations they do not deem to demand such an act. Example, provisional member proveably commits infernal diablerie and half the order unexpectedly appears at the door at the behest of a Wizard's march. --James 08:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ::Unanimous vote of the sitting council would certainly be acceptable. --Tim 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 3.5.3 (2 votes Aye, 3 votes Nay, 1 abstention) (Addition) Duties while in twilight consist of those covered in this document under Article five, paragraph one and article five paragraph two. For each full year that a magus is in twilight the duties covered by article five paragraph two shall be waived. Recommended Rewrite: All Duties outlined in Article Five are waived for a magus in twilight, with the a situational exception of Article Five, Paragraph Two. If the twilight session DOES NOT exceed the majority of two seasons, the magus will still be held to the requirements of said Article and Paragraph. :How is someone supposed to protect the Covenant while in twilight - a state when they are pretty much outside the universe? --Perikles 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC) :: This was more or less Longinus's wording, so I kept it. My main reason for putting in the rubber clause in 3.5.1 was to cover 5.1 if there actually was a situation where the members actions could affect the covenant, before I had read up on the clauses. If 3.5.6 goes through it might be more relevant tho. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) :::Who knows how twilight will affect someone. Not all twilights are 'outside the universe' A twilit (?) magus should still have the duty to protect the covenant, etcetera, as best he is able. If he isn't able, then his best is not much, if he is able, despite being in twilight, then he should still be required to do that best. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::: There is no use of the words as best he is able used in this amendment, or in the Charter regarding a member's duty. Currently as this stands, I can see this opening the door to a member being punished for being in twilight and not being available to help the Covenant in time of need, or perhaps for even being in twilight at all. Somewhat extreme, perhaps. Anyway, as this point is clearly sticking rather than an oversight in the writing, I shall vote accordingly. :::I've read the rules, and there is no way a twilit magus can do anything for you. A moderately warped magus can sometimes be moved around a bit without their conscious knowledge, but you guys are all going to just fall on the floor and become immovable and invulnerable for the duration at your warping levels. Higher warping levels physically disappear. Whatever happens, their mind and will is gone. Adding an article to your charter on the off-chance that the impossible might happen will probably look a bit daft. --James 06:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::: My reasoning parallels Corbons, we do not know how any single twilight will affect the magus or the reality he traverses (physically or metaphysically) there might be a situation when what he chooses to do in twilight may affect the Covenant. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::::: Can you give an example to demonstrate what you are suggesting? I'm curious to see how a person who cannot affect the universe, nor be affected by it, can aid the covenant. --James 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::Perhaps the twilight rules have changed? I don't really care either way how the wording is, just explaining the original thought. As I understand the wording of this addition as it stands, it is basically saying that a mage in twilight is still responsible to defend the covenant (an impossiblity, based on the rules), and still responsible for a season of service, UNLESS he has been under twilight for a full year? Article 5, Section 1 must be waived in its entirity while a mage is in Twilight. There is no way around this. The only way that Article 5, Section 2 could even apply is if the Magus were to be in twilight less than 3 seasons and ten days, and even then, a full season of service would be near impossible and remarkably cruel. I would support an addition waiving 5.1 and waiving 5.2 in the event that twilight consumes the majority of two seasons. --Tim 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :I think you are correct about that Tim. Can you please adjust this or enter a new proposal. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Tim --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) For: Phaedrus (Votes for the revised proposal.), Longinus Against: Mnemosyne, Bedo, Ambrosius Abstain:Marcus ---- Article 3.5.4 (Addition) (3 votes Aye, 2 votes Nay, 1 abstention) A member in twilight is entitled to a share of Vis as detailed in article nine paragraph three. If the duties covered by article five paragraph two are waived because of twilight duration then the member is not entitled to a Vis share. ' For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Longinus Against:Ambrosius, Bedo Abstain: Marcus : Please Ambrosius, What have we missed? Should we add something like "unless he the member chooses to provide extra services for the missed time." or is it something else you oppose? My reason for not including this option is since is hard to see the difference between a long twilight and a final one. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::I don't think you have missed anything. Ambrosius would like to wake from a lengthy twilight to find some vis waiting for him. It looks like a simple difference of opinion to me.--James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ::: Pretty much on the ball, that. Additionally, vis is not a payment for duties performed, but rather a perk of membership. As membership is not waived during twilight, I see no reason to restrict the perks. --Tim 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) :::: Well if vis is a perk of membership, and that is a very reasonable way to view things, I would agree with Ambrosius. I would still like to spell out whether Vis allocation is part of a members "Rights", I saw it like that and thought it nessessary to put in that a member in tvilight ''is entitled to his share of Vis. How about the below instead? (Please reword the last sentence to say what I mean if necessary.) Phaedrus will prefer this addition to the previous.--SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 'A member in twilight is entitled to a share of Vis as detailed in article nine paragraph three. The Covenant will keep up to 15 shares of Vis in store for the member in twilight. ' ---- Article 6.3.1 (3 votes Aye, 2 votes Nay) (Amendment) '''Each Member will have one vote on the Council. For: Longinus, Bedo, Marcus, Phaedrus Against: Mnemosyne, Ambrosius You really do want to exclude Tremere maguses from our council?! --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) After much consideration, Ambrosius councils that ignoring the long established tradition of one of the true linages houses by granting votes with no sigils would be disrespectful, at best. --Tim 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) :Longinus replies that there is a difference between votes in-Tribunal and votes in-Covenant. It could be argued that it is disrespectful to said True Lineage to discount its votes entirely from council proceedings, as opposed to a tribunal where the votes of House members are merely held in trust by more experienced members and not lost entirely. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::Soldale Longinus makes a strong argument. Perhaps we could table this amendment and seek the council of the Tremere Domus mangus? Ambrosius would willingly back the the House Tremere preference in this instance. --Tim 10:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Page 86 of the core book states that mages also have 'a voting sigil, a small physical object used to identify them and vote at Tribunal'. Personally, I don't make distinction between Tribunal and Council. It is merely a matter of scale. I was also of the opinion, possibly from a previous ST or edition, that a sigil was passed on the magus after their gauntlet and was often created by their parens as a gift and a mark of ascension and their new status - and pretty much its ONLY use was in situations exactly like this. Personally, I don't think this has much to do with the Tremere at all. Realistically, they are not an issue at all. I would be very surprised if there were even one Tremere in the whole of the Stonehenge Tribunal. Even if we get players wanting to join who are interested in Tremere, they can make their character creation decision with the knowledge that this is the way things work - which shouldn't be surprising for them, considering that this is the way things normally work. As far as I'm aware, this is a very standard way things are done, and is probably actually a part of the Code. *shrug* --Perikles 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::I make a huge distinction between Tribunal and Council. We have already done so, in fact, by denying "provisional members" the right to vote at council even though they possess a sigil. We can give a vote to whomever we please. I've been in Covenants where the Seneschal was given a single vote to represent the will of the ungifted at the Covenant. I've also been in Covenants where no one got a vote - it was run as a dictatorship. Sigils are, in my opinion, irrelevant to voting at our Council. And should be. JBforMarcus 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::What Pericles says about the description of a sigil and its use is correct, except that Tremere specifically do not get given theirs after passing their gauntlet but must best their Master in Certamen or something like that. I also agree with JB that there is a massive distinction between Council and Tribunal. In fact they have little to do with each other. I firmly agree that sigils are irrelevant to our actual covenant voting rights though they are a symbolicly attractive method of voting. --Corbonjnl 09:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ::::Although House Tremere are unlikely to be in fact affected should we require a sigil for voting, Bedo's view is that we should not require a sigil in order to vote at council because of the signals that this would send out to any members of that house. --OldNick 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) ::: Either way, My main reason to raise this proposal still stands whether we bow to Tremeres suposed wishes or not; We need to be able to hold council while someone is reprecenting the Covenant at a tribunal. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.5 (Addition) (1 vote Aye, 3 votes Nay) If two or more Members opposes the voting process proposed by the Princeps the proposed voting process must be adjusted. For: Phaedrus Against: Mnemosyne, Ambrosius, Longinus : Some one commented about two Mages holding the council hostage, well how about the current version that lets one mage hold the council hostage. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Could we include a way to temporarily for that council meeting replace the Princeps? --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :::A "vote of no confidence" in the Princeps seems like it might be a good idea ... JBforMarcus 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::: There is something like that in the Charter already, but that is a rather blunt weapon. What I am talking about is say that the Princeps is wrong on this speciffic issue, a temporal "vote of no confidence" seems like a contradiction in terms but could be what I am looking for. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) JAMES do not delete this issue! This one is important to Phaedrus. There has to be some limit/check on a powerhungry Princeps. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) With this one, perhaps I could use some more information. What are the potential voting processes? Perhaps an example of when the thie might come into play would help? --Tim 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) : The obvious example was Mnemosynes handling of how to choose sites, where Phaedrus and Longinius opposed how she posed the question. As the charter stands it would not be alowed to oppose the way that a Princeps deside to state the question the council should vote on. : Today there are established procedures for how votes should be proposed but it is still possible to manipulate the results by choosing what each question should include. An other example could be; when Perikles put my collection of charter amendments here he had Mnemosyne vote on each speciffic paragraph, and a large part of the amendments are comming through. Would we have gotten the same results if the proposed vote had been about the entire proposal or maybe (as I had thought of them) The twilight handling, the voting and the provissional membership handling? :--SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ::If we had voted on all the alterations at once, or even blocks of them, probably none of them would have passed. The amount of nit-picking over even a single word in a single proposal has meant that a few suggestions have passed. The majority have not. Frankly, I favour an incremental approach to changes. It is better for something to fail than it is to pass if you are not sure about it, and it is better for us to decide things as and when they arise, rather than dealing with hypothetical situations. However, this comes from a strong bias from my real life background at university where I studied Law, in particular the English system, which tends to change slowly and address issues as they come up. --Perikles 09:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) ::: Exactly, and I am not complaining, I was surpriced when I saw them that way but quickly realized it was a better "vote order". My point with mentioning it was that, just as you said, the other two ways would probably have gotten many things we actually wanted in there to fail and possibly some things that we might not have wanted accepted because the rest of the package was "worth it". Thus it illustrated the situation I want to adress here. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ::::And if the whole lot had been thrown out because it had been presented as a package, would you not have just represented it as it is now? I think you are getting yourself very worked about nothing at all. --Perikles 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :::::In this case it could have been possible, for a decission in council, where the same Princeps has the right to controll voting I can't see how it would be usefull. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ---- = Rejected Charter Adjustments (Majority Nay)= These amendments will need to be reworked and proposed in a later council meeting. Article 3.5.5 (Addition) (2 votes Aye, 4 votes Nay) A member may provide seasons of service ahead of time for the fulfilment of duties according to article five paragraph two while in twilight if the council agrees with a simple vote as for regular services. For: Phaedrus, Marcus Against:Ambrosius, Longinus, Mnemosyne, Bedo : What trouble do you see? From my point of view it is a way to give limited compensation to someone that puts in extra effort for the Covenant, without having to forgo that Magus services when we need them. And to answer Corobons comment, that seems to have disappeared, no I do not plan to go into twilight, but I do not expect to be free of it for ever either. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::I actually think we should be able to bank seasons of service for the future with council approval on general principle. There may be times where it is more mission critical to get two or three seasons worth of work done at one time, or even a year or so. JBforMarcus 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.2 (2 votes Aye, 4 votes Nay) (Amendment) A Member may proxy their vote to another Member of the Council. A proxy must be announced on a previous council or be able to produce the Members sigil. For: Phaedrus, Ambrosius Against: Longinus, Mnemosyne, Bedo,Marcus takes big stick, whacks (random magus) on back of head, steals sigil, enters council, declares (random magus) gave proxy to me, produces sigil, votes, leaves council, returns sigil, covers tracks (magical and mundane) wakes up (random magus) showing all concern over how they hit head. I know, not likely, but there should be more than just a mechanism of present sigil for proxy votes. --Corbonjnl 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Is a magus capable of doing this likely to be capable of vote manipulation by other means? Is this likely to happen? Just some thoughts... --James 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :: Corobon ha a good point, can we work around it some way? I would still like the possibility to declare a proxy without a full council. ::Combine the Sigil with a written note, have we got/is there any intelego magics that can verify its validity? ::Tell a mundane about it and let that mundane be subject to specific Intelego magics? :: --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :I'm voting against this, as in my opinion the word or should be replaced with the word and. I'm also dubious about whether or not this change is even necessary, but that's another issue. --Perikles 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ::I think there should be a proxy mechanism, but I don't think this is it:-) JBforMarcus 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::I'd like to see one too, Jeff - what would you recommend? --Tim 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::: We do have a provission for proxies in the charter. My reason for adjusting it is mainly that whoever travels to tribunal to represent the Covenant will not be represented at our council in the current version. :::: By the way, Corobons problem with this amendment is equaly applicable with the original. :::: --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) : I have another reason for wanting to remove the need for the sigil to proxy, a Covenant member might be dependable as proxy for our Council but not as representative to the tribunal, those situations are rather different. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 23:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 6.3.6 ((2 votes Aye, 4 votes Nay) (Addition) Any Member may request a closed ballot, then voting will be carried out by each Member holding a red or green token and all Members revealing their token simultaneously. For:Phaedrus, Bedo Against: Longinus, Marcus, Mnemosyne, Ambrosius :Please Corbon/Longinus what have we/I missed? (You did not contribute to that part of the discussion at the time.) --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::1. No hands. 2. If we are going to have a closed ballot it might as well be secret. 3. Whats the point, its relatively trivial to change the colours by magic anyway, especially of the token you are holding, as you reveal it (slightly delayed in a fumble). 4. Character style (Longinus just prefers an open voting style, or thinks he does at least.) No biggie, if it passes he'll cope. These things don't have to be unanimous you know. --Corbonjnl 09:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :::I agree with most of Corbon's points, and also just don't see the point. It also means, as an OOC aside, that any member may unilaterally disable one of the few power the Princeps has. JBforMarcus 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :: Added Sam's vote to his own proposal. --James 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) My mistake on this one. I had mistaken "closed" for "secret", shich is not the case in this ammendment. I have changed my vote from For to Against. --Tim 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC) : I Thought I was including Ambrosius and Bedos thoughts when I wrote this one, Phaedrus does not think it is necessary, if Ambrosius votes against it I obviously failed to do that. Could you two reword it to make more sense? --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I am moving this proposal to failed. It is clearly deadlocked, and this addition entails a fundamental rethink of the role of the Princeps in the covenant, and is too large an issue to be considered at this juncture. This is an entire debate unto itself, and worthy of lengthy consideration during a council session. In addition, this proposal doesn't adequately address the changes it entails. I am happy for the entire nature of the Princeps role to change, by the way. --James 08:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ---- =Old Discussion= A new page I've kicked off the new page, though I don't really have much to do in this meeting page. The title is a little plain, but never mind. Things to do: * Discuss the charter IC, get it changed into a palatable form, and get it signed. * Elect people into positions as appropriate. * Name the covenant. * Pulse (covering the establishment of the covenant and some development time) That will wrap up the "The Three Kings Inn". We will then start anew in the New Year. I will have a lot of time over Christmas and the New Year holidays, so hope to get a lot done for you all. Do add to my jobs list, and chase me up about things you would like to see done, as there are doubtless things I have forgotten during the recent lull. --James 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) It is nice to see people throwing big handfuls of clause references back at Peri, and thanks to the lull, there's even the chance that he will have forgotten what he wrote, and have to go and look them up again, too. :D To put it in pinball speak, I would like to go 'multiball' on this page, and advance the story at several points at the same time, in order to minimise the effect of Peri's prolonged posting difficulties, by getting as much done as possible before the 1st, when he disappears off into antipodian wilds. As Peri has stated that he is uninterested in the construction of the covenant, I intend to open up the first pulse just after the first of January which will give us all something to do in his absence. Thanks, --James 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Umm, there is no narrative to the later statements (at this stage) as the narrative will depend to some extent on whoever is running the meeting at that point. Otherwise we all just usurp the chairs position and the meeting degenerates. I posted these however so that the player of the chair has some direction or framework in which to write. For example, I think the membership resolution will need to be framed before we can elect a princeps, so Peri will need to frame that, and the start of the election, but if Marcus is elected then Jeff will need to frame the vis discussions? consequently these 'points' are not necessarily even in the right order. But the note said to post things there while we waited for Peri (multiball)... --Corbonjnl 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC) If this is referring to my comment about narrative descriptions, then I meant to communicate that I would prefer to see ' Arnie said "I'll be back." ' rather than ' Arnie "I'll be back." ' The latter style makes the story look like a script rather than a narrative. Cheers for posting multiple items, that should speed things up marvellously. Peri has dropped off the map though, so I suspect he is either travelling to his destination, or newly arrived and thus not likely to use a computer for a day or so. --James 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Charter Issues Twilight What would people like to see in here? It's clear people want some provision for Twilight. I can look at things later, but having just returned, I'm trying to priotize, so if you have some ideas or arguements, stick them here. --Perikles 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Signing Just to move things along, I wrote in Marcus signing. As a player, I'm not too concerned with getting everything hammered out to the point of a bulletproof legal document. Folks who are enjoying the debate, by all means continue:-) JBforMarcus 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changes to the charter and cutting red tape If the players wish to change this document later - maybe because a flaw has been found in it, or some new idea has arisen, then I am happy for changes to be made, assuming there is an OOC consensus on it. We don't need to drag things through IC if they have no real affect on things actually occurring at that point in the game. Take Twilight, for instance. Unless twilight is a pressing issue in IC, it doesn't really matter if clauses relating to it are added or amended. So while it has been brought up in IC discussion, we can simply slap it on later without needing anything other than an IC nod from all concerned (two week poll, vote=no, silence=yes). Had it never been mentioned in the story, it would simply be inserted as appropriate in the main body of the charter, but as it was brought up in IC discussion, it would be added as an amendment at the end of the document, with some arbitrary date attached. =Amendments made to the charter prior to signing= Article 3.2.6 (5 votes Aye) (Addition) After two years of Provisional membership, a Provisional Member must apply to the Council without sponsorship to join the Covenant as a Full Member. If under a Greater Vote their request for Membership is approved, they shall be welcomed into our fold and immediately granted Membership of the Covenant, with all attendant Rights, Privileges and duties. If not, their Provisional membership shall be revoked. For: Phaedrus, Longinus, Bedo, Ambrosius, Marcus, Mnemosyne Against: :Bedo would like to see a reasonable period defiend in which to apply - suggests wording "After two years of Provisional Membership, a Provisional Member must apply within one year to join the Covenant as a Full member. This applications does not requires sponsorship". etc, --OldNick 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ::Jeff thinks it should be "by a Greater Vote" and "Membership in the Covenant" but those are quibbles.JBforMarcus 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- Article 3.5.1 (Addition) (6 votes Aye) A member of the Covenant who enters twilight has their rights and duties adjusted for the duration of the twilight since they are unavoidably detained. Unless they are applicable in '''the special situation or provided for ahead of time all rights and duties except those mentioned in the following paragraphs are suspended.' * grammar: the -> a ? * "the following paragraphs" - which? For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Ambrosius, Longinus, Bedo, Marcus Against: ---- Article 9.3.5 (Amendment) (6 votes Aye) '''If a Member is absent during the distribution of vis their portion shall be set aside in trust for their return. Unless a proxy has been declared they shall forfeit their choice and their portion shall be allocated from the remainder.' For: Mnemosyne, Phaedrus, Ambrosius, Longinus, Bedo, Marcus Against: ---- Article 3.5.2 (5 votes Aye, 1 abstention) (Addition) A magus currently in twilight retains his current membership status and keeps the rights detailed in this document under Article four, paragraphs two, four, seven and eight. For: Phaedrus, Longinus, Bedo,Marcus, Mnemosyne (reluctantly) Against: Abstain: Ambrosius : We might want a provision about Provisional Members here, I do not think their 2 years should count during a "significant" twilight. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :: Good point. Suggested addition "The time spent in Twilight does not count against the period of Provisional Membership defined in Article Three, paragraph four. :::Marcus would agree with that. We also need some mechanism to decide when Twilight is final and the resources of the magus in question are freed for re-allocation. ::: Phaedrus would vote for that bold faced addition. ::: About Final twilight, spontanuously I would say of course we need to define it. But if each Magus has his own dwelling and we put a limit on the Vis held in store for members in twilight then maybe the resources in question is not so large. --SamuelUser talk:Samuel_ArsMagica 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) :::I disagree. However, if you want to raise it in Council, as an amendment, then go ahead. As to the other issue of final twilight, it seems like it could be a good point maybe. Perhaps raise it in Council? Or just wait till it happens and we'll attend to it then. --Perikles 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :I'm reluctant to vote for this, because basicly large chunks of it seem irrelevant and pointless. Why do we have a duty to cloth and feed someone who does not need food or clothing, or suffer from aging or anything else? The maintaining of the sanctum is fine. But then we have the trouble of upkeeping the laboratory, when this is almost certainly inside the sanctum, and thus it's not very sound to enter it... However, I'd rather err on the side of the generous here and grumble about it later. I can always propose an amendment in Council later if it becomes an issue. --Perikles 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ----